Apple wins 'iBooks' trademark case leveled by New York book publisher
A U.S. district court judge on Wednesday handed down a summary pro-Apple judgement in a case involving the "iBooks" trademark, denying plaintiff Black Tower Press its request for injunctive relief and corresponding damages.
Black Tower Press' "ibooks" (left), and Apple's "iBooks" (right).
In the 71-page ruling, Judge Denise Cote noted the "ibooks" mark owned by Black Tower would not be confused with Apple's "iBooks" trademark use for the online e-book store, thus negating the publisher's suit against the Cupertino company, reports GigaOm.
Black Tower first filed suit against Apple in 2011 after the iPad maker announced the introduction of iBooks. The publisher argued that the name infringed on its own "ibooks" moniker which was acquired as part of a 2006 purchase of another publishing house.
As pointed out in the ruling, both Black Tower and the previous owner of "ibooks" failed to garner a registered trademark for the name, while Apple acquired the rights to "iBook" from a software maker in 1999 to be used in selling its line of colorful laptops. Apple bought the trademark outright in 2010 ahead of debuting the iBookstore and iBooks.
In her ruling, Judge Cote noted the word "ibooks" was descriptive of books sold over the Internet, and since Black Tower only used the term to in reference to a logo, its argument was denied. Further, the jurist said consumers would not be confused by the two companies' products, one of the arguments asserted by Black Tower.
Black Tower Press' "ibooks" (left), and Apple's "iBooks" (right).
In the 71-page ruling, Judge Denise Cote noted the "ibooks" mark owned by Black Tower would not be confused with Apple's "iBooks" trademark use for the online e-book store, thus negating the publisher's suit against the Cupertino company, reports GigaOm.
Black Tower first filed suit against Apple in 2011 after the iPad maker announced the introduction of iBooks. The publisher argued that the name infringed on its own "ibooks" moniker which was acquired as part of a 2006 purchase of another publishing house.
As pointed out in the ruling, both Black Tower and the previous owner of "ibooks" failed to garner a registered trademark for the name, while Apple acquired the rights to "iBook" from a software maker in 1999 to be used in selling its line of colorful laptops. Apple bought the trademark outright in 2010 ahead of debuting the iBookstore and iBooks.
In her ruling, Judge Cote noted the word "ibooks" was descriptive of books sold over the Internet, and since Black Tower only used the term to in reference to a logo, its argument was denied. Further, the jurist said consumers would not be confused by the two companies' products, one of the arguments asserted by Black Tower.
Comments
Really wish there was some mechanism for specious lawsuits costing the accuser extra funds or fines.
What if it was the opposite? What would be your feelings then? What if I started using iphone, ipod, and ipad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The publisher argued that the name infringed on its own "ibooks" moniker which was acquired as part of a 2006 purchase of another publishing house.
Cheeky, considering this 1999 Apple product:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Cheeky, considering this 1999 Apple product:
This was my thought the entire time! Although the trademark revolves around a completely different product category, which I believe means that the trademark for that iBook laptop does not apply to iBook the app. I could be completely wrong on that, though.
Yeah, I wouldn't think the trademarks carry over in any way.
Really warms the cockles of my heart.
That's "cockles". Get it?... Hello... Anybody there?..
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
That's "cockles". Get it?... Hello... Anybody there?..
LOL!
I 'sea' what you're getting at...
...and I'm cackling at your cockles!
Source anon ...
Once there were two clams chilling out at the bottom of the ocean. Their names were Sam and Joe. Sam and Joe did everything together, watched the clam bowl, went bar hopping, the stuff that all guys do.
One day, Sam died in a horrible accident. Joe was really depressed. Eventually, Joe got over Sam's death. He still missed Sam, and everyday wished that he could see Sam just once more. One day while Joe was gllopped along (gllopping is how clams move) another clam suddenly appeared in front of Joe. This clam was dressed all in white, and a little halo above it. Joe was so astonished, that he fell down. This angel clam then spoke.
"Joe, you have been very good, and you have been granted your wish. However, there will be some guidelines that you must follow."
Joe was so happy that he hastily agreed. This had been his dream for the past several months.
"What are the guidelines angel?" Joe asked. "Follow me first."
So Joe followed the angel, and soon they came to the gates of heaven.
"Before you may see Sam," the angel said, "you must put on this tart necklace. You must wear this at all times. In order for you to return to the ocean, when you return, you must have this tart with you. You have three hours, until midnight. Is this all clear?"
Joe nodded, took the necklace, and asked for directions. The angel told him to go up the hill, and he has a place on the left.
Joe gllopped up the hill, and there he saw Sam's place. There was a huge neon sign proclaiming "Sam's Dance Club". Joe went in and looked around. Behind the bar, there was Sam. "Sam!" exclaimed Joe.
Sam looked up and saw Joe. "Joe! Are you dead now too?"
"No, I have permission to come visit you for 3 hours." Joe replied.
"Well enough talk, and let's party!"
So Joe and Sam had a great time and lost track of time. In the middle of a dance, the clock started to strike 12. Joe looked up startled, hastily explained to Sam, and went down the hill as fast as he could. He made it to the gates at the last stroke. The angel was there waiting.
"Well, you barely made it. Now you can go back to the ocean once you give me your tart."
"No problem," said Joe. He reached around his neck (don't ask, they just have a neck), and the necklace was gone. "Oh No!" yelled Joe. "I don't have the tart!"
"Well I'm sorry, but I can't let you go then. Where is it?" asked the angel.
Joe said, "I left my tart in Sam Clam's Disco!"
ROSFL (Rolling On Sea Floor Laughing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
What if it was the opposite? What would be your feelings then? What if I started using iphone, ipod, and ipad?
Uhmmm.... what? Go ahead and use them; see how far you'd get. It's late in the day and I'm missing whatever point you thought you were making.
Quote:
In her ruling, Judge Cote noted the word "ibooks" was descriptive of books sold over the Internet,
I thought they are commonly known as e-books. I never read or heard anyone using 'ibooks' do describe digital books.
They are known as e-books. Just goes to show that Apple got a favorable decision because of a judge's stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
... "No problem," said Joe. He reached around his neck (don't ask, they just have a neck) ...
Why yes they do but they're Littlenecks.
Personally I have a big affinity for 'bearded' clams.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
What if it was the opposite? What would be your feelings then? What if I started using iphone, ipod, and ipad?
Come off it. He means what he said.
And so did I.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And so did I.
Okay, you meant that you think he has a bias. Good for you.
Understanding each other is an important step. He has every right to be biased, I have a right to call him on it, and you have a right to meddle in.